Hawker
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
 |
October 01, 2011, 05:05:19 PM |
|
Every human being should enjoy the same birth rights, as they should have back then. Hard to say much more about that deporable episode in time other than to say that slavery is thousands of years old and included every race...not jsut blacks. At the time though, freedom was a new concept and its implimentation left alot to be desired. Not the concept and the wording. Every human.
Times change and the concept of what is right changes with them. 1000 years ago slavery was regarded as normal and abortion as a crime akin to murder. Now the situation is reversed. Its important not to think that there is some everlasting law on these things. What we do reflects what the majority of people finds acceptable. That's why democracy works. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to NIST and ECRYPT II, the cryptographic algorithms used in
Bitcoin are expected to be strong until at least 2030. (After that, it
will not be too difficult to transition to different algorithms.)
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
NghtRppr
|
|
October 01, 2011, 05:15:53 PM |
|
Every human being should enjoy the same birth rights, as they should have back then. Hard to say much more about that deporable episode in time other than to say that slavery is thousands of years old and included every race...not jsut blacks. At the time though, freedom was a new concept and its implimentation left alot to be desired. Not the concept and the wording. Every human.
Times change and the concept of what is right changes with them. 1000 years ago slavery was regarded as normal and abortion as a crime akin to murder. Now the situation is reversed. Its important not to think that there is some everlasting law on these things. What we do reflects what the majority of people finds acceptable. That's why democracy works. So are you saying that slavery was actually moral back then just because it was acceptable to a majority of people? |
|
|
|
|
|
Bind
|
|
October 01, 2011, 05:17:25 PM |
|
no, thats why democracy does not work.
if enough people vote on it, they can bring back public executions, slavery, heresy, or kill you because you spoke out against the government.
with stated un-a-lien-able rights, they cant do that, because it violates those basic birth-rights everyone enjoys.
thats the beautiy of birth-rights.
they are automatic and last forever.
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 01, 2011, 05:34:11 PM |
|
Every human being should enjoy the same birth rights, as they should have back then. Hard to say much more about that deporable episode in time other than to say that slavery is thousands of years old and included every race...not jsut blacks. At the time though, freedom was a new concept and its implimentation left alot to be desired. Not the concept and the wording. Every human.
Times change and the concept of what is right changes with them. 1000 years ago slavery was regarded as normal and abortion as a crime akin to murder. Now the situation is reversed. Its important not to think that there is some everlasting law on these things. What we do reflects what the majority of people finds acceptable. That's why democracy works. So are you saying that slavery was actually moral back then just because it was acceptable to a majority of people? Morality is a social convention. The very ideas of slavery being immoral and abortion being OK didn't appear until relatively recently. Jesus had no problem with slavery. God instructs the Jews to take slaves in the Old Testament. Do you think he was immoral? |
|
|
|
|
|
NghtRppr
|
|
October 01, 2011, 05:37:47 PM |
|
Do you think he was immoral? Yes. |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 01, 2011, 05:39:53 PM |
|
Do you think he was immoral? Yes. 1000 years ago you'd have disagreed. And who knows what people will regard as immoral in 1000 more years. Its sensible to get things in perspective. Morals change with time. That doesn't mean that people with a different morality were in some way less good as human beings than you think you are. |
|
|
|
|
|
NghtRppr
|
|
October 01, 2011, 05:49:54 PM |
|
That doesn't mean that people with a different morality were in some way less good as human beings than you think you are. Yes it does. |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 01, 2011, 06:58:53 PM |
|
That doesn't mean that people with a different morality were in some way less good as human beings than you think you are. Yes it does. Nonsense. What it means is that you feel superior. That's just based on your subjective emotions. Its fine for your but its no reason to set aside democracy. |
|
|
|
|
|
NghtRppr
|
|
October 01, 2011, 08:59:10 PM |
|
That doesn't mean that people with a different morality were in some way less good as human beings than you think you are. Yes it does. Nonsense. What it means is that you feel superior. That's just based on your subjective emotions. Its fine for your but its no reason to set aside democracy. Why not? |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 01, 2011, 09:59:07 PM |
|
That doesn't mean that people with a different morality were in some way less good as human beings than you think you are. Yes it does. Nonsense. What it means is that you feel superior. That's just based on your subjective emotions. Its fine for your but its no reason to set aside democracy. Why not? Because people are going to organise to improve their lives and will not allow one guy with irrational views to make things worse. |
|
|
|
|
|
NghtRppr
|
|
October 01, 2011, 10:08:50 PM |
|
That doesn't mean that people with a different morality were in some way less good as human beings than you think you are. Yes it does. Nonsense. What it means is that you feel superior. That's just based on your subjective emotions. Its fine for your but its no reason to set aside democracy. Why not? Because people are going to organise to improve their lives and will not allow one guy with irrational views to make things worse. So the reason is because people won't allow it? |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 01, 2011, 10:27:47 PM |
|
Because people are going to organise to improve their lives and will not allow one guy with irrational views to make things worse.
So the reason is because people won't allow it? I know there are some forms of abortion you are OK with and that you are opposed to "normal" abortion where the unborn is killed as part of the process. On things like abortion, where there are a variety of strongly held views, the sensible thing is to choose a law that the majority can live with. You may disagree furiously but so does everyone who looks at abortion so your disagreement is no reason for people not to allow it. The alternative is a law that the majority cannot live with and you end up with violence. So yes, its because people won't allow it. You'll find the same logic applies to a lot of issues. |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 01, 2011, 10:31:27 PM |
|
no, thats why democracy does not work.
if enough people vote on it, they can bring back public executions, slavery, heresy, or kill you because you spoke out against the government.
with stated un-a-lien-able rights, they cant do that, because it violates those basic birth-rights everyone enjoys.
thats the beautiy of birth-rights.
they are automatic and last forever.
Lovely idea but then you have to have agreement as to what birth-rights are. It used be that the right to own human beings was a birth-right. Then it changed. So birth-rights do not last forever. |
|
|
|
|
|
NghtRppr
|
|
October 01, 2011, 10:54:25 PM |
|
It is true that we will never have 100% agreement on anything. The only question is, when is it acceptable to use violence to force your will on the rest of the people that disagree? For libertarians, it is simple. Violence is only acceptable in self-defense of person or property. For everyone else, they would extend it to allow the use of violence for other things beyond merely self-defense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bind
|
|
October 02, 2011, 05:42:50 AM |
|
Lovely idea but then you have to have agreement as to what birth-rights are. It used be that the right to own human beings was a birth-right. Then it changed. So birth-rights do not last forever.
I think it can be boiled down to not being infringed upon. Human fetus is a human life. No human has the right to infringe upon another human life without their permission. A fetus is a human life incapable of giving their permission. |
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 02, 2011, 06:38:43 AM |
|
Lovely idea but then you have to have agreement as to what birth-rights are. It used be that the right to own human beings was a birth-right. Then it changed. So birth-rights do not last forever.
I think it can be boiled down to not being infringed upon. Human fetus is a human life. No human has the right to infringe upon another human life without their permission. A fetus is a human life incapable of giving their permission. Those who advocate abortion sincerely believe that an unborn child is not a human life. I'm not interested in an abortion debate. The point I am trying to get across is that "birth-rights" are an arbitrary concept if you do not have 100% agreement on a list of the rights and that the list will change with time. |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 02, 2011, 06:41:01 AM |
|
It is true that we will never have 100% agreement on anything. The only question is, when is it acceptable to use violence to force your will on the rest of the people that disagree? For libertarians, it is simple. Violence is only acceptable in self-defense of person or property. For everyone else, they would extend it to allow the use of violence for other things beyond merely self-defense.
So you think abortion is taking a human life but as a libertarian you would never try to prevent it as its not defending your person or property? |
|
|
|
|
|
